You are technically correct, financial dudes like roman numerals but somewhere in history someone (probably someone reeeeeally powerful) started using MM for million and thus started the trend.
Aside, swiss watches tend to have a watch maker's four on them instead of the more correct IV... and apparently there are a bunch of other variations out there[1]. Though MM is still quite stupid.
Are we then paying the price in latency and added hops for development agility? I would have guessed a user request would never be subjected to that. With a mesh, don't you get even more latency because of the sidecar? The link you provided looks interesting; will give it a read, thanks!
Yes, you pay a latency and resource cost to have the service mesh features decoupled from the application code. Same with any abstraction e.g. containers or Kubernetes.
You could alternatively get service mesh features in the application layer with libraries like Finagle, Hysterix, etc, and not pay that cost. But then you're tied to particular languages, and changing platform features requires making code changes.
That was a great talk, thanks for sharing. I guess it all makes sense once you have bought into having synchronous dependencies between microservices - which is the part I was struggling with. But I guess if that is what you have to do, that is what you have to do.
I know it's already been mentioned, but I just wanted to endorse https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ again - you could not ask for a better teacher than Scott Wlaschin if you want to learn F#.
It's a great resource for F#. If you also want to get really strong in functional programming fundamentals I highly recommend taking Prof. Dan Grossman's free online course https://www.coursera.org/learn/programming-languages/ --he's a great teacher and the subject matter is great for all levels of experience.
Somehow I was expecting a longer account of things with more instances than "we hired this guy in Taipei, and he didn't like working remotely" - did I miss something?
And they also still have two people working remotely. I guess "Our company's remote work system worked for some people but not for others" doesn't make for a very good headline.